On Carts, Horses, and Vital Congregations – #GC12Book Study Part 2

As we approach General Conference 2012, several United Methodist bloggers are participating in a study of the books recommended for GC 2012 during Lent. The study is hosted by Rev. Jeremy Smith at HackingChristianity.net. We’ll read a different book each week. On Thursdays, HX will host discussion, and on Tuesdays, we’ll synchroblog our responses to the week’s book. For more information, check out this post. See my week one post here

In Back to Zero: The Search to Rediscover the Methodist Movement, Gil Rendle argues that attempting to reclaim aspects of the movement character of Methodism’s origins will help the UMC to overcome institutional inertia and lead to increased missional faithfulness. What most struck me was the clash between some of Rendle’s suggestions and the assumptions of the Vital Congregations program. Vital Congregations (VC) is a program that arose as a result of the Call to Action report, and it attempts to address the adaptive challenge facing the UMC described in that report: “To redirect the flow of attention, energy, and resources to an intense concentration on fostering and sustaining an increase in the number of vital congregations effective in making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” In other words, VC suggests focusing on congregations in order to help the UMC more effectively fulfill the mission of the UMC.

Rendle makes a competing suggestion. In contrast to the old UM paradigm that sought to produce “more dollars, satisfied clergy, and satisfied congregations” (43, ePub edition), he offers a new paradigm:

From output to input, members, clergy, and congregations have now been displaced as the object of attention and recipient of denominational resources to being the expendable resources of the system needed to make the critical difference of changed people who will change the world. (44)

For VC, the congregation becomes the object of focus as a proximate end toward the ultimate end of fulfilling the UM mission. For Rendle, the mission itself is the focus. My concern with the VC approach is that, while its congregational focus is ostensibly in service to the UM mission, focusing on congregations easily falls into seeing congregations as ends in themselves. As Rendle suggests, seeing congregations as resources rather than ends (even proximate ends) may better enable us to keep the horse in front of the cart when it comes to mission and congregations.

Part of keeping the horse in front of the cart concerns tracking the right metrics. VC and Rendle agree on the importance of measuring results, but they differ with regard to the best way to measure. VC seeks to develop vital congregations by asking existing congregations to set goals pertaining to five metrics: worship attendance, professions of faith, number of small groups, members in mission, and missional giving. Rendle suggests an approach that is less directive and potentially more fruitful. Admitting the difficulty of tracking the qualitative changes the UMC seeks, and drawing on business guru Jim Collins, he argues,

When one can’t quantify results by counting the difference to be measured, then one has to be willing to describe the difference. At every level of the system leaders need to describe the difference they are trying to make with the greatest detail they can muster. Only then can we have conversations in our congregations, our conferences, and our national agencies about whether there is evidence that we are moving toward the change that we want. (58)

While Rendle doesn’t prescribe a specific method comparable to VC, his approach does offer the possibility of measuring results in a way that is more missionally focused. Rather than using measures handed down from the general level, individual congregations, districts, and annual conferences could describe the differences they seek to make in their ministry settings and then choose measures relevant to their particular missions. These measures would then be used to set goals and foster accountability. In so doing, UM boies could be accountable to fulfilling the UM mission without putting excessive emphasis on the congregation-centric and context-nonspecific measures employed by VC.

While I have problems with the Vital Congregations program, I am not averse to metrics in general or those prescribed by VC. All five are important and worthy of our attention (except number of small groups – how is that a better measure than percentage of membership/attendees in small groups?). Working through the VC program even helped one congregation I worked with to identify areas of that need to be addressed. I am concerned, however, that VC makes it terribly tempting to put the cart in front of the horse – to put congregations before mission. In Back to Zero, Gil Rendle offers insights that, especially when compared to the VC approach, can help UM bodies to live their mission more faithfully. He offers little, however, in the way of concrete suggestions that might help us transform these insights into missional fruitfulness. Particularly, I have a hard time seeing how delegates might implement those insights at the General Conference level (perhaps why I’m not a delegate!). Nevertheless, Back to Zero challenged me to rethink the ways that I seek to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, both as a pastor and as a disciple.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s